{"id":102566,"date":"1973-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973"},"modified":"2015-11-17T06:55:00","modified_gmt":"2015-11-17T01:25:00","slug":"mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973","title":{"rendered":"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2679, \t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 636<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMOHANDAS LALWANI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2679\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 636\n 1974 SCC  (3) 361\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tPenal Code, s. 165-Appellant attempted to bribe\t the\nChief  Engineer to secure a contract-Trial  Court  acquitted\nbut  High  Court  convicted  and  sentenced  the  appellant-\nWhiether- High Court has power of review the entire evidence\nunder s. 417, Cr.  P.C.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  accused-appellant was acquitted by the  Special  Judge,\nBhopal,\t but  convicted\t by the High Court  under  s.  165-A\nI.P.C.,\t and sentenced to one year's rigorous  imprisonment.\nThe  prosecution  case is that on April 9, 1966,  the  Chief\nEngineer  (Construction)  of  Heavy  Electricals  Ltd.\t was\npresent in his office.\tThe appellant-accused went there for\nan  interview  with  two others.  It  is  alleged  that\t the\naccused-appellant  offered  a bribe of Rs.  3,000\/-  to\t the\nChief  Pngineer and requested him to give the  contract\t for\nwhich  tenders were submitted earlier by 4 contractors.\t  On\nbeing refused, the appellant put back the currency notes  in\nhis  pocket.   P.W. 5, the Personal Assistant of  the  Chief\nEngineer,  is  alleged\tto  have  taken\t out  the   envelope\ncontaining the currency no-es from the trouser-pocket of the\naccused and thereafter, the Chief Engineer made a report  to\nthe  Police and the accused and the report were sent to\t the\nPolice\tStation.  The First Information Report was  prepared\nin the Police Station on the basis of the report (P-1) and a\ncase was registered against the accused.\nA  complaint about the occurrence. was thereafter  filed  in\nthe  Court of the Special Judge, Bhopal, by the Police.\t  At\nthe  trial,  the Chief Engineer, (P.W. 1) gave\tevidence  in\nsupport\t of the prosecution and witnesses were\texamined  by\nboth  sides.   The trial Court did not\tbelieve\t wholly\t the\nprosecution case and gave the accused the benefit of doubt.\nOn appeal, the High Court considered the evidence on record,\nand convicted ,he accused.\nIn appeal before this Court, the appellant had assailed\t the\njudgment of the High court and had contended that there\t was\nno  sufficient\tground\tfor the High Court  to\treverse\t the\njudgment  of  acquittal of the Trial Court.  If\t two  views,\naccording  to the counsel were possible in the\tmatter,\t the\nview which was favourable to the accused, as had been  taken\nby the Trial Court, should be adopted.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD : (1) There is no cogent ground as to why the  evidence\nof P.W. I should not be accepted.  The witness had no animus\nagainst\t the  accused.\tThe witness even did  not  know\t the\naccused till the day of occurrence.  There is no  particular\nreason\tas to why P.W. I should falsely involve the  accused\nin this case.\n(ii)The\t view  taken by the Trial Court\t in  rejecting\tthe\nevidence  of  P.W. 1 was clearly unreasonable and  the\tHigh\nCourt had the cogent grounds to interfere with the  judgment\nof  acquittal passed by the Trial Court.  Further, the\tHigh\nCourt  in  reversing the order of acquittal  considered\t the\nmatters on record, including the reasons given by the  Trial\nCourt,\tas  well as those aspects which\t could\tpossibly  be\nclaimed by the accused to be favourable to him. [643B]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1130047\/\">Kanu  Ambu  Vish v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.<\/a>  1971\tS.C.\n2256, referred to and distinguished.\n(iii)It is well settled that the High Court in\tappeal,\nunder S. 417 of Cr.  P.C., has full power to review at large\nthe evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and\nreach the conclusion that upon the evidence the\n\t\t\t    637\norder of acquittal should be reversed.\tNo limitation should\nbe  placed  upon  that power unless it\tbe  found  expressly\nstated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by\nthe Code, and, before reaching its conclusion upon fact, the\nHigh  Court should give proper weight and considerations  to\nthe following matters :-(i), the views of the Trial Judge as\nto the credibility of the witnesses (ii) the presumption  of\ninnocence  in favour of the accused (iii) the right  of\t the\naccused to the benefit of any doubt and (iv) the slowness of\nan  appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact  arrived\nat by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.\nTherefore, from the matters on record and after\t considering\nthe  judgment of the trial court and the High Court, we\t are\nfirmly of the opinion that the trial is not vitiated by\t any\nsuch  infirmity as may call for interference by this  Court.\n[643E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 45  of<br \/>\n1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the, judgment and Order  dated<br \/>\nFebruary  4,  1970  of\tthe High  Court\t of  Madhya  Pradesh<br \/>\n(Jabalpur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1967.<br \/>\nHardayal Hardy, M. S. N. Nambudri and B. R. G K. Achar,\t for<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ram Paniwani and H. S. Parihar, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKHANNA,\t J. This is an appeal by special leave\tby  Mohandas<br \/>\nLalwani\t against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh\t High  Court<br \/>\nwhereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal of<br \/>\nthe Special Judge Bhopal and convicted the accused appellant<br \/>\nunder  section 165A Indian Penal Code and sentenced  him  to<br \/>\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.<br \/>\nThe Executive Engineer, Heavy Electricals Ltd.\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as HEL), Bhopal invited tenders for construction<br \/>\nof  four  BCC  overhead\t tanks, each  of  one  lakh  gallons<br \/>\ncapacity, by a tender notice published on December 23, 1965.<br \/>\nFour contractors, including the accused appellant, submitted<br \/>\ntheir  tenders.,  Those tenders were opened on\tFebruary  1,<br \/>\n1966.\tIt was found that the tender of the  appellant,\t who<br \/>\nhad  stipulated that he would use 18 tons of steel,  was  of<br \/>\nthe   lowest  amount.\tThe  other  three  contractors\t bad<br \/>\nstipulated that they would use 24 tons of steel.<br \/>\nThe  case of the prosecution is that on April 9, 1966  PW  1<br \/>\nShivnarain  Wadhwa, Chief Engineer Construction of  HEL\t was<br \/>\npresent\t in  his  office.   PW\t5  Niranjanlal\tShrivastava,<br \/>\nPersonal  Assistant to the Chief Engineer, was also  present<br \/>\nthere.\tA partition divides the office of the Chief Engineer<br \/>\nfrom  the  place where Shrivastava used to  sit.   At  about<br \/>\n11.45  a.m.  on that day, the appellant accompanied  by\t two<br \/>\nothers, came to PW Shrivastava.\t The appellant gave visiting<br \/>\ncard  P4 to Shrivastava and said that he wanted to  see\t the<br \/>\nChief  Engineer.  Shrivastava sent that card through a\tpeon<br \/>\nto Chief Engineer Wadhwa.  A short time thereafter on  being<br \/>\ncalled\tby Wadhwa, the accused appellant accompanied by\t his<br \/>\ntwo companions went inside the office of Wadhwa.  On arrival<br \/>\nthere,\tthe accused talked about big tender and stated\tthat<br \/>\nas his tender was the lowest,<br \/>\n15-L382SupCI\/74<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">638<\/span><br \/>\nthe  same should be accepted- The accused also\thanded\tover<br \/>\ncopy  P3  of  letter  dated April 8,  1966  which  had\tbeen<br \/>\naddressed  by him to  the Executive Engineer  in  connection<br \/>\nwith  the  above tender Wadhwa then told  the  accused\tthat<br \/>\naccording  to the  information received by him, the  accused<br \/>\nhad stipulated the use of only\t18 tons of steel as  against<br \/>\n24 tons stipulated by others.  The accuse however, persisted<br \/>\nin saying that his tender was the lowest.  Wadhwa then\ttold<br \/>\nthe  accused that whatever he had to say in the\t matter,  he<br \/>\nshould\ttell the Executive Engineer and that he\t might\talso<br \/>\nhand  over  a  copy of his letter  to  the  Assistant  Chief<br \/>\nEngineer. The two companions of the accused, then left\tthe<br \/>\noffice of Wadhwa, while the accused remained sitting  there.<br \/>\nWadhwa\tthen  told the accused also to go, but\tthe  accused<br \/>\ninstead\t of  going  took out from the  left  pocket  of\t his<br \/>\ntrousers  an  envelope and presented it to  Wadhwa.   Wadhwa<br \/>\ncould  see  that the envelope contained\t 100-rupee  currency<br \/>\nnotes.\t Wadhwa reprimanded the accused for doing  something<br \/>\nwrong  and at the same time he (Wadhwa) pressed\t the  buzzer<br \/>\nfor his Personal Assistant.  Shrivastava PW then came inside<br \/>\nthe office of Wadhwa.  In the meantime, the accused had\t put<br \/>\nback the envelope containing currency notes in the pocket of<br \/>\nhis  trousers.\tOn the arrival of Shrivastava,\tWadhwa\ttold<br \/>\nhim that the accused had given him bribe.  Wadhwa also asked<br \/>\nShrivastava to take out the envelope from the pocket of\t the<br \/>\ntrousers  of  the accused.  Shrivastava then  took  out\t the<br \/>\nenvelope containing currency notes from the trousers&#8217; pocket<br \/>\nof the accused.\t There were thirty 100-rupee currency  notes<br \/>\nin that envelope.  Wadhwa then rung up R.C. Gupta (PW 3) who<br \/>\nis  the\t Secretary and Vigilance Officer of HEL as  well  as<br \/>\nChandra\t Shekhar  Tiwari (PW 4), who is the  Chief  Security<br \/>\nOfficer of HEL.\t The offices of Gupta and Tiwari are also in<br \/>\nthe  Administrative  Building of HEL, in which\tbuilding  is<br \/>\nsituated the office of Wadhwa PW.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  case of the prosecution further is that on the  arrival<br \/>\nof  Gupta and Tiwari PWs, Wadhwa narrated, the\tfacts  about<br \/>\nthe  offer of Rs. 3,000 by the accused to him  as  mentioned<br \/>\nabove.\tThe accused then expressed his apologies and  stated<br \/>\nthat  he  was sorry and ashamed for what he had\t done.\t The<br \/>\naccused\t also requested that he might be forgiven  and\tthat<br \/>\notherwise  he would lose his career as a  contractor.\tWhen<br \/>\nthe  accused offered his apologies, Wadhwa remarked that  if<br \/>\nthe accused gave anything in writing, he would consider\t the<br \/>\nmatter.\t The accused thereupon wrote something on a piece of<br \/>\npaper.\tAs the writing was not found to be satisfactory, the<br \/>\nsame was not accepted by Wadhwa and the paper remained\twith<br \/>\nthe accused.  Wadhwa then asked Shrivastava to take  Lalwani<br \/>\nto  his\t room.\tWadhwa thereafter asked for  the  advice  of<br \/>\nGupta  and  Tiwari.   It was then decided  that\t the  matter<br \/>\nshould\tbe reported to the police.  Wadhwa thereupon  called<br \/>\nShrivastava  and dictated to him report P1.  In\t the  report<br \/>\nthe number of currency notes were also noted by Shrivastava.<br \/>\nThe report was then signed by Wadhwa.  The accused and,\t the<br \/>\nreport\twere thereafter sent to police\tstation\t Govindpura.<br \/>\nFormal\tfirst  information  report P8 was  prepared  at\t the<br \/>\npolice\tstation\t on the basis of report P1 and\ta  case\t was<br \/>\nregistered against the accused at<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">639<\/span><br \/>\n2.15  P.M.  Complaint about the occurrence  was\t  thereafter<br \/>\nfiled  in  the\tcourt of the Special Judge  Bhopal  by\tTown<br \/>\nInspector Gurbir Singh on.  May 20,1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>At the trial, Wadhwa (PW 1) gave evidence in support of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  case as given above.  Gupta (PW 3)\t and  Tiwari<br \/>\n(PW  4) deposed about, the extra judicial confession of\t the<br \/>\naccused\t in  the office of Wadhwa PW when they\twere  called<br \/>\nthere  by Wadhwa PW on telephone.  The\tprosecution  further<br \/>\nexamined  Shrivastava  (PW  5), according to  whom,  he\t was<br \/>\ncalled\tby Wadhwa and was told that the accused had  offered<br \/>\nhim  bribe.   The witness took out  an\tenvelope  containing<br \/>\ncurrency notes of the value of Rs. 3,000 from the pocket  of<br \/>\nthe  accused  under the directions of  Wadhwa-\tThe  witness<br \/>\nfurther\t deposed regarding the extra &#8216;\tjudicial  confession<br \/>\nmade  by the accused after the arrival of Gupta\t and  Tiwari<br \/>\nPWs.\n<\/p>\n<p>The accused, in his statement under section 342 of the\tCode<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure, admitted having met Wadhwa PW in\t his<br \/>\noffice on April 9, 1966 and about his having handed over  to<br \/>\nWadhwa\tcopy of letter P3.  The accused also  admitted\tthat<br \/>\nthe  Personal Assistant of Wadhwa had taken out 30  currency<br \/>\nnotes of Rs. 100 each from his pocket under the\t directions<br \/>\nof  Wadhwa.  The fact that Gupta and Tiwari were  called  on<br \/>\ntelephone  by  Wadhwa was further admitted by  the  accused.<br \/>\nThe  other  prosecution\t allegations  were  denied  by\t the<br \/>\naccused.   He denied having offered any amount to Wadhwa  or<br \/>\nabout  his having made any confession after the\t arrival  of<br \/>\nGupta  and  Tiwari  PWs.   The\taccused\t further  gave\t the<br \/>\nfollowing version of the occurrence :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;On  7-4-66  1 had gone to the office  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Executive\t Engineer Shri Karajgi.\t He was\t not<br \/>\n\t      there.   I  learnt  from the  office  that  my<br \/>\n\t      tender and the tenders of two or three persons<br \/>\n\t      more sent to the Assistant Chief Engineer, and<br \/>\n\t      there  was  remark  on  my  tender  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      testimonials  were not attached whereas I\t had<br \/>\n\t      sent the same on the 21st.  Therefore, I\twent<br \/>\n\t      to the Chief Engineer on the sameday and\ttold<br \/>\n\t      him  that\t my tender was the lowest  and\tthey<br \/>\n\t      say, that the testimonials have not been sent.<br \/>\n\t      On  being asked by him I replied,\t &#8216;can  bring<br \/>\n\t      the  testimonials&#8217;.  Then I went to Delhi\t and<br \/>\n\t      on 9-4-66 1 came with the testimonials and the<br \/>\n\t      consultant  Engineer  and I  had\tbrought\t the<br \/>\n\t      amount  of security also.\t Then I went to\t the<br \/>\n\t      office  of the Chief Engineer on the  9th\t and<br \/>\n\t      talked  to him and showed my testimonials\t and<br \/>\n\t      handed over the letter Exhibit P.3. For taking<br \/>\n\t      out  the\tpapers I was required  to  take\t out<br \/>\n\t      money  also  and\tafter keeping  money  in  my<br \/>\n\t      pocket I showed the papers to him.  I said  &#8216;I<br \/>\n\t      have  brought the testimonials also.   I\thave<br \/>\n\t      brought  the Engineer also.&#8217; You discuss\twith<br \/>\n\t      him  and give final reply.  &#8216;He  replied&#8217;,  Do<br \/>\n\t      not  talk\t to  me.   Speak  to  the  Executive<br \/>\n\t      Engineer.\t  &#8216;I  said&#8217;,  There  is\t corruption.<br \/>\n\t      Otherwise\t  why  my  certificates\t have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      removed  from my tender?\t&#8216;Thereupon he  began<br \/>\n\t      to say, &#8216;I am not prepared to hear this much.&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      Whereupon\t I  replied, &#8216;You are  Head  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Depart-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      640<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      ment.   If you do not hear who  will  hear?&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      Thereupon he replied,.  &#8216;Do not talk  anything<br \/>\n\t      more with me?&#8217; Whereupon I said, &#8216;Are you also<br \/>\n\t      included\tin that corruption ?&#8217; Thereupon,  he<br \/>\n\t      pressed  the, buzzer.  I had a hot  talk\twith<br \/>\n\t      him.   My Engineer also told, him.   Thereupon<br \/>\n\t      he  replied,  &#8216;I\tam  not\t prepared  to\thear<br \/>\n\t      anything.&#8217;  Then my Engineer spoke  in  Sindhi<br \/>\n\t      language,\t &#8216;He is not hearing I go  downstairs<br \/>\n\t      and I send any other person.&#8217; At the same time<br \/>\n\t      Wadhwa  Saha ,threw away the testimonials\t and<br \/>\n\t      said,  &#8216;Where  those  persons  have  gone\t  ?&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      Whereupon\t I  replied, &#8216;They have\t gone  down-<br \/>\n\t      stairs&#8217;.\tHe questioned, &#8216;What did they say?&#8217;-<br \/>\n\t      I\t replied,  &#8216;They have  not  said  anything.&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      &#8216;Then I put the testimonials in my pocket\t and<br \/>\n\t      he pressed the buzzer.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In  defence, the accused examined one witness V. S.  Asnani,<br \/>\nConsulting  Engineer.\tAccording to this witness,  he\twent<br \/>\nwith the accused on the day of occurrence to Wadhwa PW.\t The<br \/>\nwitness supported the version of the occurrence as given  in<br \/>\nthe  statement of the accused under section 342 of the\tCode<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  trial  court  was of the view that Wadhwa\tPW  was\t not<br \/>\nwholly\treliable witness.  As regards Gupta and\t Tiwari,  it<br \/>\nwas   observed\t that  they   were   interested\t  witnesses.<br \/>\nReference,  was\t also  made to\tsome  discrepancies  in\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  evidence as well as to the fact that there\t was<br \/>\nno  mention  in the first information report  of  the  extra<br \/>\njudicial  confession of the accused.  The version  given  by<br \/>\nthe  accused, in the opinion of the trial court, could\tnot<br \/>\nbe  said to be unreasonable.  In the result the trial  court<br \/>\ngave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.<br \/>\nOn appeal the High Court considered the evidence adduced  in<br \/>\nthe  case  by  the  prosecution and found  the\tsame  to  be<br \/>\nreliable.   The High Court disagreed with- the\ttrial  court<br \/>\nthat  the  prosecution evidence suffered  from\tinfirmities.<br \/>\nThe  defence  version  was rejected by\tthe  High  Court  as<br \/>\nunworthy of evidence.  In the result the appeal was accepted<br \/>\nand the accused was convicted and sentenced as above.<br \/>\nIn appeal before us Mr. Hardy on behalf of the appellant his<br \/>\nassailed  the judgment of the High Court and  has  contended<br \/>\nthat  there was no sufficient ground for the High  Court  to<br \/>\nreverse\t the judgment of acquittal of the trial\t court.\t  If<br \/>\ntwo  views, according to the learned counsel, were  possible<br \/>\nin the matter, the view which was favourable to the  accused<br \/>\nand had been taken by the trial court should be adopted.  As<br \/>\nagainst\t that,\tMr.  Ram Panjwani on  behalf  of  the  State<br \/>\nsubmits\t that the view taken by the trial court was  clearly<br \/>\nunreasonable  and there were good and valid grounds for\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  to\t interfere with the judgment  of  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt.\tWe find force in the submission of Mr. Ram Panjwani.<br \/>\nThe  prosecution  in order to bring the charge home  to\t the<br \/>\naccused\t has  examined\tWadhwa (PW  1).\t  The  witness\tgave<br \/>\nevidence  in support of the prosecution case  as  reproduced<br \/>\nabove and deposed about the offer of the envelope containing<br \/>\ncurrency  notes by the accused to him.\tWe have\t been  taken<br \/>\nthrough the evidence of the witness and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t   641<\/span><br \/>\nfind no Cogent ground as to why his evidence, should not  be<br \/>\naccepted,  The\twitness had no animus against  the  accused.<br \/>\nThe  witness even did not know the accused earlier  and\t had<br \/>\nmet  him only once before on April 7, 1966 when the  accused<br \/>\nhad seen him in his office and had made some  representation<br \/>\nregarding his tender.  In the circumstances, we can discover<br \/>\nno particular reason as to why Wadhwa should falsely involve<br \/>\nthe accused in this. case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  trial  court  did\tnot place  much\t reliance  upon\t the<br \/>\ntestimony  of  Wadhwa  because\tthe  witness  admitted\tthat<br \/>\ncomplaints had been made against him for showing favouritism<br \/>\nas  well  as  for corruption and  highhandedness.   On\tsome<br \/>\noccasions  the\twitness\t also had  to  give  explanation  to<br \/>\nclarify some particular action.\t The accused also placed  on<br \/>\nrecord\tletters\t and articles published in  a  local  paper,<br \/>\ncopies\tof which are D2, D3, D4 and D5.\t In this respect  we<br \/>\nfind  that documents D2 to D5 contained general\t allegations<br \/>\nof  irregularities  in HEL.  There were\t no  allegations  in<br \/>\nthose writings against Wadhwa by name or by designation.  As<br \/>\nregard$ the complaints made against Wadhwa, there is nothing<br \/>\nto  show that the authorities concerned found  substance  in<br \/>\nany of those complaints.  As things are, such complaints are<br \/>\neven  made against senior officers who are very honest.\t  In<br \/>\nthe absence of&#8217; material to show that substance was found in<br \/>\nany of the complaints made against Wadhwa, it would, in\t our<br \/>\nopinion,  be not proper to infer that Wadhwa is a person  of<br \/>\ndoubtful  integrity  from  the\tmere  fact  that   sometimes<br \/>\ncomplaints were received against him.  Another reason  which<br \/>\nweighed\t with the trial court in not Placing  much  reliance<br \/>\nupon the testimony of Wadhwa was the fact that in answer  to<br \/>\na  question  relating to the details of the  design  of\t the<br \/>\ntanks  in  question,  the witness replied that\tit  was\t his<br \/>\nprerogative  as Chief Engineer incharge of  construction  to<br \/>\ndecide as to what he should do.\t The above answer would show<br \/>\nthat  the witness used inappropriate language in  describing<br \/>\nhis powers and functions.  The answer might also reveal that<br \/>\nthe  witness had exaggerated notion of the authority  vested<br \/>\nin  him, but these facts would hardly warrant  an  inference<br \/>\nthat Wadhwa PW is not a very truthful witness and the  court<br \/>\ncannot place much reliance upon his testimony.<br \/>\nThe conduct of Wadhwa immediately after the offer to him  of<br \/>\nthe envelope containing currency notes by the, accused lends<br \/>\nconsiderable  support to his testimony.\t Wadhwa\t immediately<br \/>\npressed\t  the  buzzer  and  called  Ms\tPersonal   Assistant<br \/>\nShrivastava PW.\t Shrivastava PW was then told by Wadhwa that<br \/>\nthe  accused  had  offered  him\t bribe.\t  Wadhwa  also\ttold<br \/>\nShrivastava  to\t take out the envelope\tcontaining  currency<br \/>\nnotes from the trousers&#8217; pocket of the accused.\t Shrivastava<br \/>\nthen  took out the envelope containing currency\t notes\tfrom<br \/>\nthe trousers &#8216; pocket of the accused.  The envelope was then<br \/>\nfound  to  contain 30 currency notes of Rs. 100\t each.\t The<br \/>\nevidence  of Wadhwa in this respect is corroborated by\tthat<br \/>\nof Shrivastava.\t PW.  Shrivastava too had no animus  against<br \/>\nthe  accused and it is not explained as to  why\t Shrivastava<br \/>\nshould falsely depose against the accused in this case.<br \/>\nIt  has\t been pointed out by Mr. Hardy that Wadhwa  did\t not<br \/>\nmention\t in  report  P1 dictated by him\t that  he  had\ttold<br \/>\nShrivastava about the offer of bribe by the accused to\thim.<br \/>\nThis omission appears to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">642<\/span><br \/>\nhave been due to the fact that Wadhwa did not give  complete<br \/>\ndetails\t in  the  report  dictated  by\thim.   As  mentioned<br \/>\nearlier,  there\t is nothing&#8217; to show as to  why\t Shrivastava<br \/>\nshould\tfalsely depose against the accused.  The  fact\tthat<br \/>\nShrivastava was a Personal Assistant of Wadhwa would  hardly<br \/>\njustify\t rejection of his testimony, especially when  Wadhwa<br \/>\nhimself had no animus against the accused.  In any case,  it<br \/>\nis  mentioned  in  report Pi and is  also  admitted  by\t the<br \/>\naccused\t in his statement under section 342 of the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure that Shrivastava took out Rs. 3,000\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  trousers&#8217; pocket of the =used under the  directions  of<br \/>\nWadhwa.\t There is nothing to show that the accused protested<br \/>\nagainst the taking out of the currency notes from his pocket<br \/>\nby  Shrivastava\t under\tthe directions of  Wadhwa.   If\t the<br \/>\naccused was an innocent person and had no guilty conscience,<br \/>\nhe would in the normal course have flared up and not  meekly<br \/>\nsubmitted to the recovery of currency notes from his  pocket<br \/>\nby Shrivastava under the directions of Wadhwa.\tThe conduct<br \/>\nof Wadhwa in directing Shrivastava to take out the  envelope<br \/>\ncontaining currency,notes from ,the pocket of the accused is<br \/>\nin  consonance\twith the prosecution case  and.\t belies\t the<br \/>\ndefence version.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  evidence  of Gupta and Tiwari PWs regarding  the  extra<br \/>\njudicial  confession. made by the accused after the  arrival<br \/>\nof  these  witnesses  lends  further  corroboration  to\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  Wadhwa.  These two witness,  who\twere  senior<br \/>\nofficers of HEL, had no enmity with the accused and  nothing<br \/>\nhas  been  brought  out as to why  they\t should\t make  false<br \/>\nstatements against the accused.\t It is true that Wadhwa made<br \/>\nno  mention of the extra judicial confession of the  accused<br \/>\nin  the\t report sent by him to the  police.   This  omission<br \/>\nmight  also  have been due to the fact that Wadhwa  did\t not<br \/>\ngive full details in the report dictated by him.  Be that as<br \/>\nit  may, even if the evidence regarding the  extra  judicial<br \/>\nconfession of the accused were excluded from  consideration,<br \/>\nthe  other material on record, particularly,  the  testimony<br \/>\nand   conduct  of  Wadhwa  as  well  as\t the   evidence\t  of<br \/>\nShrivastava,   furnishes   ample  ground  for\tbasing\t the<br \/>\nconviction of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  are\t not impressed by the plea taken on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\naccused\t that  Rs.  3,000, which  were\trecovered  from\t his<br \/>\npocket,\t had  been  brought  by\t him  for  the\tpurpose\t  of<br \/>\ndepositing security.  The question of the depositing of\t the<br \/>\nsecurity would have arisen only if and when the tender would<br \/>\nhave  been accepted.  The amount of security in\t that  event<br \/>\nwould  have  to\t be deposited within 15\t days  of  the\tdate<br \/>\ndirecting the contractor to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>Argument  has  also been advanced on behalf of\tthe  accused<br \/>\nappellant that it was not a condition of the tender that the<br \/>\ncontractor  would use 24 tons of steel in the making of\t the<br \/>\ntanks in question.This may be so, but it would not make\t any<br \/>\nmaterial difference so far as the present case is concerned.<br \/>\nThe evidence of Wadhwa PW shows that he had learnt from\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Chief Engineer that as against the accused who had<br \/>\nstipulated  to use 18 tons of steel, the  other\t contractors<br \/>\nhad stipulated to use 24 tons of steel.\t The accused, in the<br \/>\ncircumstances,\tmight  have  become  apprehensive  that\t his<br \/>\ntender in spite of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">643<\/span><br \/>\nhis lowest quotation might not be accepted.  Necessity might<br \/>\nconsequently have been felt by the accused to offer  illegal<br \/>\ngratification with a view to secure a favourable decision in<br \/>\nthe matter of the acceptance of the tender.<br \/>\nThe view taken by the trial court in rejecting the  evidence<br \/>\nof Wadhwa, in our opinion, was clearly unreasonable and\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court, in our opinion, had cogent grounds to  interfere<br \/>\nwith  the judgment of acquittal of the trial court.  We\t are<br \/>\nunable\tto  find any infirmity in the  appraisement  of\t the<br \/>\nevidence  by  the  High Court as may, induce us\t to  take  a<br \/>\ndifferent view.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reference  on behalf of the appellant has been made  to\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of  this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1130047\/\">Kanu  Ambu  Vish  v.<br \/>\nState  of  Maharashtra<\/a>(1) wherein it was observed  that\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court in reversing a judgment of acquittal should\t not<br \/>\nonly  consider all matters on record, including the  reasons<br \/>\ngiven  by  the\ttrial  court in respect\t of  the,  order  of<br \/>\nacquittal,  but should particularly consider  those  aspects<br \/>\nwhich  are in favour of the accused, and ought not also\t act<br \/>\non  conjectures\t or  surmises.\tThe above,  dictum,  in\t our<br \/>\nopinion, cannot be of much avail to the appellant because we<br \/>\nfind that the High Court in reversing the order of acquittal<br \/>\nconsidered  the\t matters on record,  including\tthe  reasons<br \/>\ngiven  by  the trial court, as well as those  aspects  which<br \/>\ncould  possibly be claimed by the. accused to be  favourable<br \/>\nto him.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  is\twell  settled that the High Court  in  appeal  under<br \/>\nsection 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has full power<br \/>\nto  review  at\tlarge the evidence on  which  the  order  of<br \/>\nacquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that\tupon<br \/>\nthe evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.\t  No<br \/>\nlimitation  should  be placed upon that power unless  it  be<br \/>\nfound  expressly stated in the Code, but in  exercising\t the<br \/>\npower  conferred  by  the  Code\t and  before  reaching\t its<br \/>\nconclusion  upon  fact\tthe High Court\tshould\tgive  proper<br \/>\nweight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of<br \/>\nthe trial judge as to the credibility, of the witnesses; (2)<br \/>\nthe  presumption  of innocence in favour of the\t accused,  a<br \/>\npresumption  certainly not weakened by the fact that he\t has<br \/>\nbeen acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to<br \/>\nthe  benefit  of  any  doubt; and (4)  the  slowness  of  an<br \/>\nappellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived by a<br \/>\njudge  who  had the advantage of seeing the  witnesses.\t  We<br \/>\nhave been taken through the judgments of the trial court and<br \/>\nthe  High  Court and we find that the judgment of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt is not vitiated by any such infirmity as may call\t for<br \/>\ninterference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before we part with this case, we would like to observe that<br \/>\nas long as an impression exists that corruption is prevalent<br \/>\nand  that unless one pays to somebody things are  not  done,<br \/>\nthere  would  be always persons who would feel the  urge  to<br \/>\noffer  bribe.\tBribe would be offered not only\t to  get  an<br \/>\nundue favour but also to avoid unnecessary harassment and to<br \/>\nsee  that no obstruction or delay is caused in\tgetting\t the<br \/>\nmost  legitimate  work done.  To prevent the  repetition  of<br \/>\ncrimes. like<br \/>\n(1)  A I. R. 1971 S. C. 2256.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">644<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the one of which the appellant has been found guilty, it  is<br \/>\nnecessary  to  inculcate a general feeling that\t things\t are<br \/>\ndone\tin   due   course   uninfluenced    by\t  extraneous<br \/>\nconsiderations.\t  It would be unfortunate that,\t rightly  or<br \/>\nwrongly, an impression were to exist that without payment of<br \/>\nillegal\t gratification,\t things would not be done.   At\t the<br \/>\nsame time, the position in law is that if one makes an offer<br \/>\nof  bribe  to a public servant, he would be  guilty  of\t the<br \/>\noffence\t under section 165A Indian Penal Code.\t The  courts<br \/>\nare  concerned\tonly  with  the\t fact  whether\tthe   person<br \/>\narraigned as an accused before them is guilty of the offence<br \/>\nwith  which he is charged.  The finding regarding the  guilt<br \/>\nof  the accused cannot be affected by any  consideration  of<br \/>\nthe social and administrative milieu in which the offence is<br \/>\ncommitted.  Once the guilt is proved, as it has been in\t the<br \/>\ncase of the appellant, the law must take its course.<br \/>\nThe appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.C.\t\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">645<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2679, 1974 SCR (1) 636 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: MOHANDAS LALWANI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/09\/1973 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ ALAGIRISWAMI, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-17T01:25:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-17T01:25:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\"},\"wordCount\":3824,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\",\"name\":\"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-17T01:25:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-17T01:25:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973","datePublished":"1973-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-17T01:25:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973"},"wordCount":3824,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973","name":"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-17T01:25:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-lalwani-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-11-september-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohandas Lalwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}